Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-19TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD TRURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Barbara Caldwell, Martin Christofferson, Natan Huffman, Tom Hatfield, and David Weinstein ALSO PRESENT: Henry Slater, Penny Lisi — Recording Secretary, Perry and Patricia Mudge — Applicants (1), Jim Salk — Attorney for applicant (2) ADEN I)A: (1) Perry and Patricia Mudge Sketch Conference (2) Sylivia Leonardo Estate Sketch Conference (I) Perry and Patricia Mudge Sketch Conference 7:09 PM Chui►•persorr Caldwell ripened the meetit ?g. The Mudge's want to tell us about what they are proposing. Do you want to come up and talk to us Mr. Mudge? Pe. Mudge: I'd like to get a mini - development permit so I can sell those last two lots on 392. It's A K B. 'They're above the Stowell property and above the church, in between Stowell's and Nichols. B. Caldwell: And there's 60 feet in between that meets the potential road'? Pe. Mudge. That's to get into the back. field. B. Caldwell: And that would be enough for a... Pe. Mudge: It would be enough for a right- of -wvay road if the y ever wanted to put one in there in the future. I could have kept 30 feet and that Would have done my purpose but I kept 60. Looking into the fixture, not so much for my benefit but somebody else's. 1 still have over 125 feet of road frontage around the buildings that's connected with the rest of the land down in back. M. Christofferson: Perry is a neighbor of mine. I live right there and he's got a spot up here too. He's been selling lots off and now he's at a point where he's got to come here because he sold so many lots. Pe. Mudge: 1 used up my three lot allotment and it'll be four years before I can sell any more and I'm K3 and I don't want to wwrait four years and 1'd like to sell just these two lots and I know in order to do it Pvc got to have a mini- development. 1 have a buyer for one of them now and maybe for the other one if it is approved. D. Weinstein: And then there's something about these lots (pointIV to the map). Pe. Mudge: 'I'hose are additions to the properties that are already there. They will have to be approved. B. Caldwell: But not approved for building purposes'? Pe. Kludge: Right. D. Weinstein* So this, "A" is going to get connected to this one'? Pe. Mudge. No. V M. Christofferson: This "L," is going; to get connected to the church which is below us and this is going to go to Qell. 13. Caldwell: Okay and this one is going to be connected to that (j)ointing to the map)? Pe. Mudge* Yes, to Marl: Bell. T. Ratfield: You're maintaining, another right of way? Pe. Kludge: Yes. T. Hatfield: So there's two means of ingress and egress so you could put a road through there some day. Pe. Mudge: Anybody who in the fixture, who wants to buy my propemy. they've still got room to develop it. B. Caldwell: What's the lay of the land there? M. Christofferson: It all slopes down this way (pointingr to ►,ohich wvcpj. B. Caldwell: Anybody have any questions on it`? N. Huffman: We're just talking about those, "A" and ``B "? B. Caldwell% Those for building; purposes with a notation presumably that for these two (pointing to the map) that would have to be stipulated they were not for building purposes. H. Slater: I think you have to approve it with some conditions; which one of the conditions is that that piece of landlocked property be joined to an adjacent property. You can put any reasonable condition you want and since that would address the overall purpose of good planning there's no reason why you shouldn't do that. In fact I approve those type of sales frequently but the condition is that they have to demonstrate they have done that and the way they do that is to give me a copy of the recording sales agreement between the two buyers. Pe. Mudge. I think my lawyer has already gone ahead with the paperwork on that. T. Hatfield: The only question I have is they've allowed for 60 feet. Is that going to be sufficient'? H. Slater: That's what the spec is now. The), got a road spec and that can be showed to .lack. B. Caldwell: Any other questions? D. Weinstein: 'These two lots are well drained conditions? Pe. Mudge: Yes. B. Caldwell: Okay, so you don't see any radical changes gentlemen? Okay then shall we approve it for going on to public hearing? H. Slater: I would recommend this is one you could do as a preliminary/final in one shot. It has no major replications anyplace. Exempt from the health department. 8. Caldwell: hoes it go 2399 H. Slater: No. because the county has never adopted an official map and that's the key to the whole thing of subdivision and 239 they have to adopt an official map. 7:23 PM Marty Christofferson made a motion which was seconded by 'four Hatfield to send this to public hearing on July 17, 2003 and was approved unanimously. (2) Sylivia Leonardo Estate Sketch Conference 7:24 Pell Chairperson Caldwell opened the floor to Attorney Jim Salk. J. Salk: Thanks for allowing me to pop in like this. I think this is similar to the Mudges in the fact that we're on our fourth lot that's under 10 acres out of the fairly large piece of property. We've now got 114 acres left and what we want to do is subdivide out this little piece of about three and a quarter acres that will be along the road and the balance of it on that side of the road at least will go to one owner. We've got a purchase offer for it and we've been trying to sell it for many years and we've finally got someone willing to pay somewhere nears its value. The only problem is that it's the fourth subdivision under 10 acres within 5 years. H. Slater: Actually it's the residual portion that creates that less than 10 acre lot. T. Hatfield: You're keeping lot I and selling lot 2. J. Salk: We're selling the big lot because the logic of that is the three and a quarter acres is the road frontage along Route 13. T. Hatfield: How many feet do we have here? J. Salk: About 400 feet on the three and a quarter acre and 127 for the big piece going back. H. Slater: What I'll do is when we prepare to distribute this; I will distribute also a copy of my analysis to the whole situation. M. Christofferson: So, this doesn't have enough road frontage to do any building on right Hen-y? H. Slater: Yes, there's 127 feet for one lot. .1. Salk: That's the real point, it's only one lot so if the person who's buying it wants to do anything on this, he'll have to come back to you. H. Slater: Other than build one house. 1). Weinstein: The form suggests other agencies don't have to weigh in? H. Slater: I haven't looked at this yet so I can't say anything. 'There's probably not any other agency involvement. D. Weinstein: But this means potentially two road cuts on Route 13. Doesn't that mean the State would want to weigh in? H. Slater: The State in that area has no choice but to grant at least one road cut to anv one parcel. (Explained State road cut permission). B. Caldwell: Are there any other questions? D. Weinstein: At this time, this action, it's only when they ask? H. Slater: Correct, it's when the improvement is made. M. Christofferson: Do you have any idea what the folks are going to do with this land when they buy it? J. Salk: No, i don't. i B. Caldwell: Do I hear a motion that we send this on to a public hearing? 7 :35 PM Ratan Huffman made a motion which was seconded by David Weinstein to send this to public hearing on July 17, 2003 and was approved unanimously, 7:35 PM Chairperson Caldwell asked if there was any other business. D. Weinstein: Should we do something to get the town board to move? B. Caldwell: In the past, it's taken how many years? M. Christofferson: Barbara. how did it go at the meeting'? You guys presented it, right? B. Caldwell: They said thank you very much and that was it. George did a nice presentation. M. Christofferson: I was at the last town board meeting and they did talk about it and Chris Michaels wanted to see something. There was something he was interested in and I can't remember what; another map for something. D. Weinstein: Was George there'? M. Christofferson: Igo, B. Caldwell: i haven't received any request for information yet but at least they're looking at. Well, presumably they're going to have some informational meetings, H. Slater: That was the idea. v D. Weinstein: That's what I'd like to get them moving on because if George disappears in the woodwork, we've lost a lot. 7 :40PM Marty Christofferson made a motion which was seconded by David Weinstein to close the meeting, which was unanimously approved. TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD ' THURSDAY, JUNE 199 2003 NLEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Barbara Caldwell, Martin Christofferson, Natan Huffman, Tom Hatfield, and David Weinstein ALSO PRESENT. Henry Slater, Penny Lisi — Recording Secretary, Perry and Patricia Mudge — Applicants (1), Jim Salk — Attorney for applicant (2) AGENDA. (1) Perry and Patricia Mudge Sketch Conference (2) Sylivia Leonardo Estate Sketch Conference (1) Perry and Patricia Mudge Sketch Conference 7:09 PM Chairperson Caldwell opened the meeting. The .Mudge's want to tell us about what they are proposing. .Do you want to come up Pe. Mudge. B. Caldwell: Pe. Mudge: B. Caldwell: Pe. Mudge: M. Christofferson: Pe. Mudge: D. Weinstein: Pe. Mudge: B. Caldwell: Pe. Mudge: D. Weinstein: Pe. Mudge: and talk to us Mr. Mudge? I'd like to get a mini - development permit so I can sell those last two lots on 392. It's A & B. They're above the Stowell property and above the church, in between Stowell's and Nichols. And there's 60 feet in between that meets the potential road? That's to get into the back field. And that would be enough for a,.. It would be enough for a right-of-way road if they ever wanted to put one in there in the future. I could have kept 30 feet and that would have done my purpose but I kept 60. Looking into the future, not so much for my benefit but somebody else's. I still have over 125 feet of road frontage around the buildings that's connected with the rest of the land down in back. Perry is a neighbor of mine. I live right there and he's got a spot up here too. He's been selling lots off and now he's at a point where he's got to come here because he sold so many lots. 1 used up my three lot allotment and it'll be four years before 1 can sell any more and I'm 83 and I don't want to wait four years and I'd like to sell .just these two lots and I know in order to do it I've got to have a mini- development. I have a buyer for one of them now and maybe for the other one if it is approved. And then there's something about these lots (painting to the map). Those are additions to the properties that are already there. They will have to be approved. But not approved for building purposes? Right. So this, "A" is going to get connected to this one? No. 6 40".' �a S Y E :. Christofferson: This 'VI is going to get connected to the church which is below us and this is going to go to Bell, .R. Caldwell: okay and this one is going to be connected to that (poinjmrag 10 he map)? Pe. Mudge: Yes, to Mark Bell. 'L. Hatfield, You're maintaining another right of way? Pe. Mudge: Yes. T. Hatfield: o there's two means of ingress and egress so you could put a road through there some day. Pe. Mudge: Anybody who in the Future, who wants to buy my property, they've still got morn to develop it. B. Caldwell. What's the lay of the land there? M. Christofferson: it all slopes down this way (lx)rr�f ng try which ivay)- B. Caldwell: Anybody have any questions on it? N. 11tiffmaw We're just talking about those, "X' and "B ""? B. Caldwell; Those For building purposes with a notation presumably that for these two (pain ing to (c neap) (hat would have to be stipulated they were not for building purposes. H. Slater. I think you have to approve it with some conditions, which one of the conditions is that (hat piece ofI and locked property be joined to an adjacent property. You can put any reasonable condition you want and Since that would address the overall purpose of good planning there's no reason why you shouldn't do that. In fact I approve those type of sales frequently but the condition is that they have to demonstrate they have done that and the way they do that is to give me a copy of the recording sales agreement between the two buyers. Pe. Mudge: i think my lawyer has already gone ahead with the paperwork on that, T, Hatfield& The only question 1 have is they've allowed for 60 feet. Is that going to be sufficient? H. Slater. That's what the spec is now. They got a road spec and that can be showed to Jack, B. Caldwell: Any other questions? R Weinstein; These two lots are well drained conditions? :Pe. Mudge: Yes. B. Caldwell: Okay, so you don't ,gee any radical changes gentlemen? Okay then shall we approve it for going on to public hearing? 11. Slater: i would recommend this is one you could do as a preliminary/final in one shot, Tt has no major replications anyplace. .Exempt from the health department, B. Caldwell: Does it go 2399 H. Slater: No, because the county has never adopted an official rnap and that's the key to the whole th1 ng of subdivision arnd 239 they have to adopt an official map. 7 :23 PM Marty Christofferson made a motion which was seconded by Tom Hatfield to send this to public hearing on July 17, 2003 and was approved unanimously. ***** RR****** RRR***** R* RR**** R** RRRRRfe*f e* *R * * * *R * * * * * * *R *RA * * * *RR *RR * *R* (2) Sylivia Leonardo Estate Sketch Conference 7:24 PM Chairperson Caldwell opened the floor to Attorney Jim Salk, I Salk: Thanks for allowing me to pop in like this. I think this is similar to the Mudges in the fact that we're on our fourth lot that's under 10 acres out of the fairly large piece of property. We've now got 114 acres left and what we want to do is subdivide out this little piece of about three and a quarter acres that will be along the road and the balance of it on that side of the road at least will go to one owner. We've got a purchase offer for it and we've been trying to sell it for many years and we've finally got someone willing to pay somewhere nears its value. The only problem is that it's the fourth subdivision under 10 acres within 5 years. H. Slater: Actually it's the residual portion that creates that less than 10 acre lot. T. Hatfield: You're keeping lot 1 and selling lot 2. I Salk: We're selling the big lot because the logic of that is the three and a quarter acres is the road frontage along Route 13. T. Hatfield&. How many feet do we have here? • 3. Salk: About 400 feet on the three and a quarter acre and 127 for the big piece going back. H. Slater: What I'll do is when we prepare to distribute this; l will distribute also a copy of my analysis to the whole situation. M. Christofferson: So, this doesn't have enough road frontage to do any building on right Henry? H Slater: Yes, there's 127 feet for one lot. I Salk: That's the real point, it's only one lot so if the person who's buying it wants to do anything on this, he'll have to come back to you. H. Slater: Other than build one house. D. Weinstein: The form suggests other agencies don't have to weigh in? H. Slater: I haven't looked at this yet so 1 can't say anything. There's probably not any other agency involvement. D. Weinstein: But this means potentially two road cuts on Route 13. Doesn't that mean the State would want to weigh in? H. Slater: The State in that area has no choice but to grant at least one road cut to any one parcel. (L rplained State road cut permissio11), B. Caldwell: Are there any other questions? D. Weinstein: At this time, this action, it's only when they ask? N Slater: Correct, it's when the improvement is made. M. Christofferson: Do you have any idea what the folks are going to do with this land when they buy it? I Salk: No, 1 don't. It I B. Caldwell; Do I hear a motion that we serid this on to a public hearing? I &M PAI Natan Huffman made a motion which was seconded by David Weinstein to send this to }public hearing on July 17, 2003 and was approved unanimously. 7:35 PSI Chairperson Caldwell asked if there was any other business_ U. Weinstein. Should we do something to get the town board to move? B. Caldwells In the past, it's taken how many years? M. Christofferson: Barbara, how did it go at the meeting? You ,buys presented it, right? .B. Caldwell. They said thank you very much and that was it. George did a nice presentation_ 11x1. Christoffersom I was at the last town board meeting and they did talk about it and Chris Michaels wanted to see something. There was something he was interested in and I can't remember what; another rnap for something. D. Weinstein# Was George there? M. Christofferson, No. B. Caldwell: 1 haven't received any request for information yet but at least they're looking at. Well, presumable they're going to have some informational meetings. H. Slater. That was the idea. D. Weinstehc That's what I'd like to get them rnovirig on because if George disappears in the woodwork, we've lost a lot. 7:40PM' Many Christofferson made a motion which was seconded by David WeIutein to close the meeting which was unanimously approved_ ,I